How dumb is letting the UAE take charge of our ports?

I mentioned before, apparently unbeknown to recent visitors, that the ignoramus decision to put a company based in the United Arab Emirates in charge of a number of our ports was one of the more boneheaded decisions I've seen in quite some time.

Well, you get an idea just how dumb it truly is, when there is a growing public outcry and bipartisan opposition to said boneheaded decision. From Michelle:

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., is questioning administration approval of the sale authorized this week by shareholders in a London-based company.

Lawmakers are circulating letters on Capitol Hill voicing concerns about the sale's implications for maritime security, and one, Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., has called for hearings...Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said, "If our ports are the most vulnerable targets for terrorism and if we are at war, as the president says, we should be overly critical of handing over management of our ports to any foreign countries, post 9/11."

A spokesman for DP World did not return telephone messages or e-mails from the AP on Wednesday.

Critics have complained that control over port operations by DP World could endanger U.S. security. They cite the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against New York and Washington...

Like I mentioned before, as much as it pains me to do it, I have to agree with Chuck the Schmuck Schumer on this one. This just doesn't, on the surface, make a lick of sense.

In the interest of fairness, here is the White House's defensive response. I've read it, and I just don't feel any better or more relieved.